Potential Automation

Its more likely they'd use Old Dalby to test an ATO system but it all comes down to money. Highgate would mean paying Tubeline's for its use. And Metronet's situation means its unlikely to want to spend extra on something thats not really needed. The W&C bit too simple to need ATO really and as you said its a good way to get drivers to have regular practice on manual. Does seem like W&C was a quick fix to say look we've done one line and this is what you can expect!

waste of money?

I do not mean ATO, I mean driverless automated.

I don't see why emergency walkways make any difference whatsoever really. The bottom line will always be that any evacuation of trains will be at the direction and under the control of staff so the current method of walking passengers down the tunnel should be good good enough.

As for driverless trains the Vic line could have gone that way when it was built but the public at large was not ready for that and indeed for PR purposes I'm sure that LU still believes that drivers are necessary even if they are more trainminder than traindriver!

In hindsight I think we can all see that a driverless Vic train back in the 1960s would have been perhaps a step too far and so the powers that be at the time were probably forward thinking in more ways than one!

At the end of the day someone needs to be the 'can carrying' target!

Brian

I'm interested to know how "official" this information was.

It would be almost impossible to install a crossover at the entrance to Waterloo due to the sharp curves and steep grades. To install a crossover would involve having to move the platforms further towards the depot, effectively making the depot too small. It would also require the building of a new supporting structure above the crossover. The side platforms would cause an operational issue, and building a central platform with associated infrastructure would add to the expense considerably.

The Bank terminus is more of a limit on capacity than the Waterloo terminus anyway.

It would be very difficult and very expensive to build loops at either end of the line. For a line which is only highly patronised during the peaks, it is not cost effective carrying out much more than the present capacity enhancement project (17tph increased to 23tph).

Watson374, Hiya re: your OP.

With respect I think the Woodford-Hainault branch of the Central Line beat your suggestion by about 30 years....


Cheers.

Haven't been around lately, so I missed this.

The 42nd st. shuttle (S) in the NYC Subway works like this, albeit triple-tracked. It's about a two-minute run end-to-end, and they have two drivers per train (one each way). In the peaks, they run flat out and are packed: not sure how many tph they can pull off.

However, the W&C is much too long to pull this off, I think, though you could likely gain some performance enhancement by using a driver at each end with suitable control protocols.

I didn't think I'd ever say that the W&C was too long, by the way.

They mostly don't, near as I can tell: the 'track 1 shuttle' is noticeably more crowded than the other two going from Times sq. to Grand Central because it's the first one you come to, while coming the other way they're about even.

The platform layout at Times Sq. is something like

| tunnel    |  
|           ---------------- 
|                          |
|    -----------------------
|   |  track 1 
|   ------------------------
|                           |
|   ------------------------
|   |  track 3
|   |  track 4
|   -------------------------
|                           |
----------------------------- 

Where "tunnel" is the passageway to the rest of the station. The island platform is built over where the former track two was, and has a wrought iron fence separating it from track one. This was originally a local stop on what is now the 7 train, and this was rapidly realized to be a dumb idea. The 7 now runs about 20 or 30 feet lower and has a proper four-track station with two islands (the standard NYC layout).

In order to get the extra platform in for the shuttle, they just put it in over top track 2.

References indicate that it's officially 0.8 mi end-to-end, with a running time of 1 minute. Dwell is longer than you probably think: remember, this train is full both ways and everybody has to get off at the other stop. They claim 'service every 2-3 minutes' on their website, but no exact figure seems to be available.

Oh, whoops.

The sometimes confusing terminology of the NYC subway system tripped me up. What is now the shuttle was part of the IRT Main Line, some of the oldest subway in Manhattan, until 1918: the shuttle has operated on the track since then. At the time, it linked the East Side and West Side tracks, though I'm not sure of the service pattern. All the tracks still laid down for the shuttle connect to the rest of the system, but not to each other.

For the record, I'm not a New Yorker: I'm currently at uni, but "home" is Toronto.

It is now over 40 years since the testing started on the Hainault Woodford loop - not sure of the exact date but it was about 1964.

This was after the tests on the District Line between Northfields & Acton Town on the test road and also some trials at I believe Stanford Brook where an R Stock was fitted with ATO but not ATP. The equipment was fitted in the part of the saloon between the first pair of doors and the cab allowing engineers to watch what was happening and the train to carry passengers !

Wouldn't work - you need a four train service (minimum) in the peak to cope with the demand.